Haven't posted in years - due to the McAndrew Board going away. Fire Franklin. This weekend.

[Safety Blitz]

There’s an old saying:
“Never say never.”
Never say “always” is just as accurate.
Not making it a one possession game at that stage was a huge mental mistake.
Similar to not attempting to punt the Buckeyes deep late in the OSU game.
People can wave charts and type long explanations all they want. Those decisions virtually ended PSU’s chances for a comeback the instant they failed.

 

[shak66_psu]

You weren't missed! What a childish post. Now you're out of here!

OMG you’re still alive?!

 

[dswartz]

Going for 2 after the last TD made a lot of sense, so certainly not "nonsensical".

How so? If you don't make the 2 pt conversion at that point, the game is over because you're down 9 - which is exactly what happened. If you kick the extra point, you're only down 8 and still in the game. When down, you just want to keep extending the game and hope for your opponent to make a mistake.

 

[med2659]

The dude is a fraud. He is a bully. Look no further than his mafia stare down of Jones after getting asked some hard questions about his nonsensical decisions to go for 2 - not just the Michigan game - it's been happening for years. He talks 'analytics'. Ok pal.
After his stare down, he pulled out his sheet of paper and wrote down 9 - 1 = 8 Oh crap
Time for him to move on.
I can't take his schtick any more. Not even sure what it is? When was the last time he laughed at a press conference?! He puts this tough guy persona on. And he ain't that. Let him go coach Syracuse and then call it a career.
Ok hornets. Have at it.

he does laugh and joke at press conferences...just look a couple of weeks ago he went in detail about coffee and asked every reporter about what they like and drink...asks about favorite Thanksgiving meals etc...that said i have no faith in Franklin with OSU and Michigan or any legit top ten 10 team going forward...needs to show me before i believe again...that simple...and his 2 point tries in the Michigan were really bad and illogical

 

[Erial_Lion]

How so? If you don't make the 2 pt conversion at that point, the game is over because you're down 9 - which is exactly what happened. If you kick the extra point, you're only down 8 and still in the game. When down, you just want to keep extending the game and hope for your opponent to make a mistake.

Read all of the prior posts…when down, I worry about maximizing the chance of winning more than extending the game.

Barnwell likely explains it better than me...

 

[heckmans]

Welcome back. This board is still packed with nasty inbred dorks from coudersport as you can see by the warm welcome you received. Yes Franklin can recruit like hell, but he’s too arrogant to admit to his faults and say he sucks at scheme and gameday execution.

You don't think the content and framing of the post caused the response? You think it's inbred people from Coudersport, huh? Wow

 

[ryoder1]

Because if you're going to miss the two point conversion, it's better to know that information earlier than later (and there is no reason to think that your odds of making the conversion will increase as the game moves along).

When down 15 and then scoring a TD, you should always go for two. Coaches are finally coming around on it slowly but surely, but many fans/announcers still don't see it.

Why is it good to know you are out of the game sooner? Miss, down 9, ball game. And that is a good thing?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Why is it good to know you are out of the game sooner? Miss, down 9, ball game. And that is a good thing?

Miss earlier, down 9, and you know what you need to do to win (if you hit the onside kick, you're looking for a quick score, likely a FG, to try and get it back again).

If you're down 8 and get the onsides kick, you don't know if you just need one more score or two. Every coach just plays it like they'd need one more, but an 8 point game isn't a true one score game.

It's always a good thing to get that information sooner...again, unless you believe that the odds are different of making the two point conversion after the 2nd touchdown. My goal isn't to "stay in the game longer"...it's to maximize my chances of winning. And those two things aren't always completely aligned.

 

[auxgym]

Please explain how it made a lot of sense because on it's face, it was the worst in game decision any Big Ten coach has ever made.

USC went for 2 in the exact same situation on the same day by chance. So there is another coach out there of a high profile program that thinks it's not such a bad way to go.

 

[hoflane]

Because if you're going to miss the two point conversion, it's better to know that information earlier than later (and there is no reason to think that your odds of making the conversion will increase as the game moves along).

When down 15 and then scoring a TD, you should always go for two. Coaches are finally coming around on it slowly but surely, but many fans/announcers still don't see it.

Why should you always go for it in that situation?

 

[hoflane]

Your post pretty much sums up the reason you go for two in that situation. If you go for two and miss with 4 minutes left, you know that you need 2 more possessions (so if you get the ball back, you know that you can settle for a long FG and try another onsides kick). If you wait until late to go for 2 and miss, the game could be over at that point without enough time left to onsides kick and go for the FG. My strategy will change if I know I need one more score vs. two more scores, so it's helpful to know how aggressive I am with my play calling (and how aggressively I need to conserve time).

There is no reason to believe that going for 2 after a second TD is more likely to succeed than going for two after the first TD...so the question becomes, is it better to know how many scores you still need now, or later. The old school reasoning is "make it a one score game", but there is a big difference between a 7 and 8 point game. I'd rather enhance my chances to win the game, rather than "extend the game".

As I mentioned, you see more and more coaches realizing this is the way to go (just as you are with the coaches beginning to go for 2 when they are down 14 and score, since it increases your chances of winning).

Here is a pretty old article about it as the analytics community was starting to realize that it's the right strategy (it's the first one I found when googling, but I'm sure there are others that go into more details that I can get into in a post)...

Trailing by 15 in the middle of the 4th quarter, teams are foolish to not go for 2 after touchdowns

Let’s start with the obvious: your odds of winning when trailing by 15 in the 4th quarter are really, really low. From 1994, the first season the two-point attempt was introduced to the NFL, to 2011, 68 teams have entered the 4th quarter trailing by exactly 15 points. Only one of those teams...

www.footballperspective.com

Man, you watch too much James Franklin football and listen to too many of his postgame news conferences. Your post is entirely illogical. People like you should never never never never ever ever ever ever ever be allowed to talk about football to anyone of any age group! So because more coaches are going for two it means it’s the right thing to do? I think you know where I’m going with that question. No harm meant toward you. I think you’re most likely a great human being, but your reasoning lacks reason. One of these days I’ll take the time to break it down.

 

[hoflane]

USC went for 2 in the exact same situation on the same day by chance. So there is another coach out there of a high profile program that thinks it's not such a bad way to go.

Yeah and what’s USC’s record? Their coach went for two because he has no defense. The polar opposite of PSU. His best defense is his offense. The variables are not the same with both decision making processes. USC has justification for going for two. PSU did not. Both decisions come from head coaches who a) can’t coach defense (Riley) and b) love emotionally charged moments aka big plays (Franklin) which skews their conventional coaching thought process.

 

[hoflane]

Miss earlier, down 9, and you know what you need to do to win (if you hit the onside kick, you're looking for a quick score, likely a FG, to try and get it back again).

If you're down 8 and get the onsides kick, you don't know if you just need one more score or two. Every coach just plays it like they'd need one more, but an 8 point game isn't a true one score game.

It's always a good thing to get that information sooner...again, unless you believe that the odds are different of making the two point conversion after the 2nd touchdown. My goal isn't to "stay in the game longer"...it's to maximize my chances of winning. And those two things aren't always completely aligned.

You already know what you need to do to win…..score more points than the opponent with the same or fewer opportunities to score. Place a value and emphasis on points coming at a premium at all times, they are never guaranteed. Not to justify your actions with “well we would rather know sooner vs later that we lost” or “we were playing for an extra possession” wrapped up as something entirely different. Respect the “opportunity to score points” and always place your players in a position to be successful. Had Franklin taken this approach time and again this board wouldn’t be up in a frenzy the way it is now, the media wouldn’t be dogging him the way they are, and the fans wouldn’t be booing him at the games.

 

[wilbury]

Miss earlier, down 9, and you know what you need to do to win (if you hit the onside kick, you're looking for a quick score, likely a FG, to try and get it back again).

If you're down 8 and get the onsides kick, you don't know if you just need one more score or two. Every coach just plays it like they'd need one more, but an 8 point game isn't a true one score game.

It's always a good thing to get that information sooner...again, unless you believe that the odds are different of making the two point conversion after the 2nd touchdown. My goal isn't to "stay in the game longer"...it's to maximize my chances of winning. And those two things aren't always completely aligned.

I get the logic but I'm still not sure I agree. It's college football and there are emotions and momentum involved. Kick the extra point, keep momentum going, one score game, pressure on the other offense and a fired up defense. Miss a 2 pt conversion, that's all on it's head. Two score game, your team starts to think that they aren't going to win. Of course if you make the 2 pt conversion things really get cranked up but that never seems to happen for us.

 

[brupsu]

Disagreed with the decision to go for 2 but claiming that it was the worst in game decision any Big Ten coach “has ever made” is your most idiotic post yet and that covers a lot of territory.

Tongue in cheek

 

[The Spin Meister]

USC went for 2 in the exact same situation on the same day by chance. So there is another coach out there of a high profile program that thinks it's not such a bad way to go.

How much time was left in the USC game? And how did it work out?

 

[The Spin Meister]

Miss earlier, down 9, and you know what you need to do to win (if you hit the onside kick, you're looking for a quick score, likely a FG, to try and get it back again).

If you're down 8 and get the onsides kick, you don't know if you just need one more score or two. Every coach just plays it like they'd need one more, but an 8 point game isn't a true one score game.

It's always a good thing to get that information sooner...again, unless you believe that the odds are different of making the two point conversion after the 2nd touchdown. My goal isn't to "stay in the game longer"...it's to maximize my chances of winning. And those two things aren't always completely aligned.

So wrong. Knowing you absolutely need to get two scores in less than two minutes is better than trying to get to where you only need to score once?

 

[SR108]

Going for 2 after the last TD made a lot of sense, so certainly not "nonsensical".

Maybe, but going for two at the end of the second quarter was a head scratcher IMO.

 

[SR108]

Your post pretty much sums up the reason you go for two in that situation. If you go for two and miss with 4 minutes left, you know that you need 2 more possessions (so if you get the ball back, you know that you can settle for a long FG and try another onsides kick). If you wait until late to go for 2 and miss, the game could be over at that point without enough time left to onsides kick and go for the FG. My strategy will change if I know I need one more score vs. two more scores, so it's helpful to know how aggressive I am with my play calling (and how aggressively I need to conserve time).

There is no reason to believe that going for 2 after a second TD is more likely to succeed than going for two after the first TD...so the question becomes, is it better to know how many scores you still need now, or later. The old school reasoning is "make it a one score game", but there is a big difference between a 7 and 8 point game. I'd rather enhance my chances to win the game, rather than "extend the game".

As I mentioned, you see more and more coaches realizing this is the way to go (just as you are with the coaches beginning to go for 2 when they are down 14 and score, since it increases your chances of winning).

Here is a pretty old article about it as the analytics community was starting to realize that it's the right strategy (it's the first one I found when googling, but I'm sure there are others that go into more details that I can get into in a post)...

Trailing by 15 in the middle of the 4th quarter, teams are foolish to not go for 2 after touchdowns

Let’s start with the obvious: your odds of winning when trailing by 15 in the 4th quarter are really, really low. From 1994, the first season the two-point attempt was introduced to the NFL, to 2011, 68 teams have entered the 4th quarter trailing by exactly 15 points. Only one of those teams...

www.footballperspective.com

Ok, but why go for two after the first touchdown in the second quarter?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Ok, but why go for two after the first touchdown in the second quarter?

We shouldn't have in that situation.

 

[Wesauking Lion]

Going for 2 in the second quarter is desparation. You have essentially conceded that you dont think you can win and or score more points. CJF can defend it all he wants.... just another stupid call

 

[Erial_Lion]

So wrong. Knowing you absolutely need to get two scores in less than two minutes is better than trying to get to where you only need to score once?

But you don't "need to only score once"...you need to score, and then try to convert the two point conversion. Better to know now if you're going to convert it so that you can plan accordingly.

 

[bison13]

But you don't "need to only score once"...you need to score, and then try to convert the two point conversion. Better to know now if you're going to convert it so that you can plan accordingly.

Sorry, but in this case you’re wrong. Again, I understand the analytics and if there’s five minutes to go in the game you’re right, but there’s two. Analytics doesn’t account for momentum, the fact that you’re at home field with a great student section and putting pressure back on Michigan by getting it to a one score game. This is where scouting and preparation come in and override any analytics or chart that tells you when to go for two. You know that you have at most, one more possession based on time left, timeouts and understanding how Michigan’s going to approach their possession. you’re not going to get a second possession in regulation, so instead of trying to know whether you’re playing for two possessions, you know that you’re only going to get one and you need to try and win the game in overtime. When you’re the home team, you always play for overtime, you have the crowd behind you, and if you win the toss, you’re in the catbird seat.

From someone who has played and coached in these games for 20+ years you absolutely kick the point to keep it as a one possession game to keep the crowd involved. Plus knowing that it’s now one possession versus two Michigan may change their playcalling on third down and attempt to pass, therefore, on an incompletion, it gives you extra time.

 

[auxgym]

How much time was left in the USC game? And how did it work out?

There was 3:44 left in the USC game vs Oregon. USC failed on the 2 point conversion and lost by 9 points. Interestingly the announcer was going crazy saying ..."I can't believe they went for 2" and the color man a former player was saying..."I have zero problem with USC going for 2 there". Kinda like the argument going on with the experts around here.

 

[The Spin Meister]

There was 3:44 left in the USC game vs Oregon. USC failed on the 2 point conversion and lost by 9 points. Interestingly the announcer was going crazy saying ..."I can't believe they went for 2" and the color man a former player was saying..."I have zero problem with USC going for 2 there". Kinda like the argument going on with the experts around here.

But 3:44 is a huge difference from 1:59. See post by @bison13 above. You were only going to get one shot…..and even that was highly unlikely as onside kicks rarely work. If they work 30% of the time to get back to back ones would 6%. (Flunked statistics 🤭so corrections accepted)

 

[auxgym]

But 3:44 is a huge difference from 1:59. See post by @bison13 above. You were only going to get one shot…..and even that was highly unlikely as onside kicks rarely work. If they work 30% of the time to get back to back ones would 6%. (Flunked statistics 🤭so corrections accepted)

Huge difference? I thought it was a difference of 1 min 45 seconds? Yeah....I know I know

 

[LandoComando]

Dabo is stubborn over the portal, not necessarily NIL, right?

The entire SEC has had a Saban problem for 14 years. Now they have a Smart problem. 5 years running. I don't think overpaying for a guy like Dabo makes sense. Buyout Smart or Saban or hire someone who can be the next one of them 2. Otherwise, they are going to repeat the process all over again.

Whoever they hire, they better not get stuck in another longterm big $$ buyout. Unless they just like making headlines for spending money.

I can't see Dabo and A&M being a good fit. Though I no longer think Dabo's a lock to replace Saban so...maybe it's his best long term option but there's going to be a ton of pressure to win and win immediately.

 

[auxgym]

Huge difference? I thought it was a difference of 1 min 45 seconds? Yeah....I know I know

But 3:44 is a huge difference from 1:59. See post by @bison13 above. You were only going to get one shot…..and even that was highly unlikely as onside kicks rarely work. If they work 30% of the time to get back to back ones would 6%. (Flunked statistics 🤭so corrections accepted)

USC had only 1 time out remaining......

 

[Wallace Breen]

Disagreed with the decision to go for 2 but claiming that it was the worst in game decision any Big Ten coach “has ever made” is your most idiotic post yet and that covers a lot of territory.

Go look at what the scoreboard said. It was the worst decision a Big Ten coach ever made. It isn't that hard. The game was over when we failed to convert because we were down two scores whereas we would have been down one. The fact that you are arguing shows your intelligence.

 

[auxgym]

Go look at what the scoreboard said. It was the worst decision a Big Ten coach ever made. It isn't that hard. The game was over when we failed to convert because we were down two scores whereas we would have been down one. The fact that you are arguing shows your intelligence.

You might want to start back tracking.............since Franklin's decision was not worse than Woody Hayes' decision to punch a Clemson player or Bobby Knight's decision to choke one of his own players. ( I won't even harp on chairs flying across the floor, which was even better than Dick Harter throwing his sport coat into the bleachers at Rec Hall) Since Coach Franklin still has a job......I would say you are clearly wrong. Don't even begin to say one is a Coaching decision and one is personal conduct.......since a Coach is evaluated on everything.

 

[step.eng69]

This probably isn’t a popular take with some posters. But every time I see what I perceive to be a boneheaded decision by Franklin, I want him fired. Then faced with the frightening reality of who could be next (some posters suggestions are mind numbing, and I don’t perceive them as more stupid than the people actually making the decision) I figure I can live with him a little longer.

I believe you have some fine wisdom entrenched in your brain, although occasionally breached by breasts and firm buttocks.

Carry on Thomas... 🧐

"The adage “with age comes wisdom” may actually ring true, according to psychologists at Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin.

By examining how aging affects decision-making, researchers concluded that older adults use the experience in decision-making accumulated over their lifetime to determine the long-term utility and not just the immediate benefit before making a choice. However, younger adults tend to focus their decision-making on instant gratification, says Darrell Worthy, a professor of psychology at Texas A&M.

Younger and older adults performed two variants of this experiment, one where the increasing option was better in the long-run and one where the decreasing option was actually better in the long-run as well, meaning the gain from selecting the increasing option repeatedly would never make up for how much better the decreasing option was.

“What we found was that between those two situations, younger adults performed about the same, so they selected both options equally,” Worthy said. “However, older adults tended to figure out which one — the increasing option or decreasing option — was better each situation, so they performed better in both of those tasks.”

Despite the well-documented neural declines of older adults, Worthy said the expertise these individuals gain from having made numerous decisions throughout their entire lives allows for them to make better decisions in many real-world contexts. This is especially true, he continued, when present decisions interact with future decisions, creating a sequence of decisions that often is more influential on outcomes than a solitary choice."

 

[ryoder1]

Miss earlier, down 9, and you know what you need to do to win (if you hit the onside kick, you're looking for a quick score, likely a FG, to try and get it back again).

If you're down 8 and get the onsides kick, you don't know if you just need one more score or two. Every coach just plays it like they'd need one more, but an 8 point game isn't a true one score game.

It's always a good thing to get that information sooner...again, unless you believe that the odds are different of making the two point conversion after the 2nd touchdown. My goal isn't to "stay in the game longer"...it's to maximize my chances of winning. And those two things aren't always completely aligned.

I think the flaw in this approach is it necessitates recovering two onside kicks to win once you miss the first 2 pt conversion which of course we did. I would think you try for one onside kick recovery and a two point conversion being down 8. Once you go down 9 you have effectively lost the game so who cares if you think you think you are "maximizing your chances of winning" because you have no shot after the first missed two pointer because then it requires successive onside kick recoveries which would have astronomically low odds.

Yes, I see that once you are down 8 there is no guarantee of making that 2 pt conversion but I would take those odds over the odds of absolutely needing to recover two onsides kicks. Yes, I understand if you miss the two point conversion when down 8 you then need to recover a second onside kick but I like the odds of converting a 2 pt attempt when down 8 versus needing to recover 2 onside kicks when down 15.

Of course if you make the 2 pointer to cut it to 7 then you are in better shape then if you kicked the EP but that applies whenever.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Dan Campbell is on board too it seems.

 

[lazydave841]

Dan Campbell is on board too it seems.

I was just coming here to say that.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Read all of the prior posts…when down, I worry about maximizing the chance of winning more than extending the game.

Barnwell likely explains it better than me...

View embedded media

That was with 5:02 left and all their timeouts. Hugely different.

 

[shak66_psu]

You weren't missed! What a childish post. Now you're out of here!

Omg you’re still alive?!